UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2013 > Jun > Jun 14

Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast

From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:16:49 -0400 (EDT)
Archived: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:08:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast


>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 03:37:59 +0100
>Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast

>>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:44:23 -0400 (EDT)
>>Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden on Coast to Coast

>>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>>>To: <post.nul>
>>>Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 17:36:06 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden on Coast to Coast

>><snip>

>>>Apologies for interrupting, but recent off-line discussion
>>>(yesterday) gave an insight on the 'other dimensions' debate.

>>>That is, although I'd always dismissed the thought of other
>>>dimensions, re-thinking the premises outlined in 'Flatland' by
>>>Edwin Abbott Abbott - see:

>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
>>><snip>

>>Other dimensions is not even on the table with regard to the
>>visitors. People use the term "interdiminsional", "other
>>dimensions", etc., as a synonym for 'parallel universe', when
>>the two are completely distinct.

>>For one thing, we exist in multiple dimensions (length, height,
>>depth, time, although time is now being challenged as the 4th
>>dimension). So if there were life in extra dimensions it would
>>likely exist in multiple dimensions as well. If that life would
>>then interact with our dimensions it would not appear as flying
>>saucers and spacemen. When we looked at it we wouldn't know what
>>we were looking at. It would appear quite odd and something
>>quite foreign to our perceptions.

>>Not to mention that the other dimensions that are believed to
>>exist are all completely rolled up so tiny that only subatomic
>>particles could be effected by them or interact with them.

>>Also, parallel universes are quite in vogue as of late. However,
>>there are problems with them too. If technology could be
>>invented to transport one into a parallel universe it would not
>>possess the ability to fine tune or choose a specific parallel
>>universe. It would all be chance. And the thing about that is
>>that if the laws of physics are even just slightly off in that
>>other universe the traveler would immediately cease to be.

>>To burst another bubble, many scientists have already discarded
>>the notion of worm holes as well. I'm no expert on this but
>>supposedly the calculations show that the moment that any matter
>>would enter a worm hole the worm hole would then immediately
>>collapse killing any person trying to cross it.

>Hi Jason,

>We'd better be precise when talking of 'dimensions'.

>If there were a fourth dimension, then, according to the strict
>logic of 'Flatland' no three-dimensional observer could know of
>it unless a 4-dimensional being somehow 'entered' our dimension
>- appearing, as I said, as a seemingly paranormal event.
>Although if that being had complete control over its dimensional
>movements it could indeed simulate anything it wished: spacemen,
>ghosts or gods.

It would definitely be viewed as 'paranormal' by our perceptions
but it would not possess the ability to become anything as you
claim. It would look really weird to us but it could not make
itself appear as a flying saucer with spacemen, for example.
That's not how extra dimensions work.

>Coincidentally, while you and I were busy with other things, but
>after your post, a Chinese pal told me of this short explanation
>(from one point of view), apparently by a clever teenager - at:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGguwYPC32I

>and titled "4th Dimension Explained By A High-School Student".

>My Chinese pal sent it because we'd been discussing the
>(fallacious in our view) relativistic concept of 'Time' as a
>dimension - and you'll see that student seems to agree.

Actually mainstream science now is swayed to the side that time
is not the fourth dimension and that time is just change. I
remember when I was young hearing about how time was the fourth
dimension so it just goes to show that scientific opinions do
change with time.

>However, as you say, the 'other dimension' term is often used to
>mean types of (unseen) existence or travel by means presently
>unknown to us.

From my perspective it appears that much of the public confuses
extra dimensions with parallel universes. They are completely
distinct things.

>I'm completely discounting the 'string theory' story of rolled-
>up dimensions for several reasons, primarily because 'string
>theory' has always seemed (to me) to be merely mathematicians'
>wishful thinking, and is no longer even fashionable as
>speculation.

Agree. It has not been able to produce any evidence.

>Also completely discounted are 'worm-holes' and their so-called
>parental 'black holes'. I'm on record - see:

>http://ufoupdateslist.com/2007/jan/m10-008.shtml

>but there's earlier posts) as giving several reasons for my
>disbelief, some concerning their non-visibility (yes - the
>presence of 'black holes' would be very obvious indeed - if they
>existed). Another reason is the universal and over-arching power
>of "conservation of angular momentum" which, to my mind forbids
>a massive body from reaching a density stage much beyond a
>neutron star.

Black Holes as currently described by science most likely do not
exist. The problem is the singularity, a concept that is more
magical than scientific. In the real world we aren't allowed to
divide by zero and nothing can be infinite. Yet for some reason
black hole supporters are given a free pass on both counts.

>Because the mathematicians who dreamed-up and popularized 'black
>hole theory', notably Hawking in Brief History of Time,
>apparently failed to realize that real, physical objects are a)
>not symmetrical; and b) will therefore spin - faster and faster
>- with any accretion. And accelerating spin inevitably means
>that polar 'jets' will at some stage re-distribute the core
>matter of that spinning body.

>As for parallel universes, the idea seems impossible to prove or
>disprove (so it's not 'scientific' - see Popper), and, along
>with 'black holes', 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', there has
>never been any physical evidence of their existence.

It's not just that. Let's assume that parallel universes exist.
In science fiction we have all these stories of people traveling
to a parallel universe. The problem is there is no way to steer.
You can't create a dial if there is no way to specifically
isolate a specific parallel universe from the rest. Instead, it
would be completely random. Perhaps a traveler might simply go
into the nearest universe an then go from there. But the notion
of choosing a specific universe to enter may be a pipe dream.

>If we check the accumulating evidence we see that our physics
>theories and cosmological theories (the standard models) are
>being shot to pieces by contradicting discoveries - presently
>all being swept under the mat of 'consensus'.

I agree Ray. There are many problems with many of the standard
models in science. These problems are omens indicating our
knowledge is incomplete. It may very well be the models are
either partially or completely wrong.


-Jason Gammon




Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com